The court clarified the application of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and emphasized the absence of vicarious liability in such cases.

Mahendra M.Malviya (P-1), Nisha S.Rajput (P-2) and Surndra Singh Rajput (P-3) have preferred the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of summoning order dated 01.09.2001 and subsequent proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 1551/1/10 titled as “Bhagwan Singh T.Rajput v. Mahendra M.Malviya & Ors., filed under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. In a Complaint Case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act filed by respondent No. 2 before Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmadabad vide order dated 01.09.2001, the petitioners were summoned to face trial. When they did not put appearance despite issuance of process several times, the complainant moved Supreme Court for transfer of proceedings in T.P.(Crl.) No. 355/2007 and on 04.05.2009, after hearing the parties, the case was transferred to Patiala House Courts, Delhi. The process was issued time and again to procure petitioners’ presence but they did not respond and costs Rs. 30,000/- were imposed for their non-appearance while adjourning the matter for framing of notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. and furnishing of bail bonds. The petitioners opted to challenge summoning order and the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in July, 2011 after a gap of ten years.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that a non-speaking order without recording pre-summoning evidence cannot be sustained. The complainant employed as a peon was provided accommodation in the office premises where he and his family lived. In June, 2001 when P-2 and P-3 were on tour and P-1 was out of station, some cheques signed by P-2 on behalf of various companies were kept in the Almirah to be delivered by the complainant as instructed on phone. The arrangement was made only to meet emergency. The complainant/respondent No. 2 in connivance with political rivals developed mala fide intention and stole the signed cheques and misused for his own benefit for which two FIRs bearing Nos. 16/2001 and 17/2001 were registered against him in which he is evading arrest. The cheques in question bear P-2’s signatures on behalf of various companies and P-1 and P-3 have nothing to do with the cheques. The petition cannot be maintained in the absence of impleadment of company on whose behalf the cheques were issued. Respondent’s counsel urged that after recording his statement on oath, the petitioners were summoned to face proceedings under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. Due to their political influence, they evaded appearance. He further contended that the cheques in question were issued by P-2 as he had rented Gayatri Processors at A/76, Saijpur, Gopalnagar, Shahwadi, Octroi Naka, Pirana Road, Ahmeddabad on payment of Rs. 4 lacs p.m. as rent to the petitioners. As he was unable to manage the huge unit due to his ill-health, it was entrusted to P-1 by executing power of attorney on 26.07.1999. The petitioners agreed to the terms and conditions incorporated in the GPA for running the said factory on rent. All the petitioners together agreed to pay and deposit monthly rent of Rs. 4 lacs. The petitioners did not deposit any amount in his account and when confronted, P-2 delivered five cheques of various dates amounting to Rs. 84 lacs. On presentation, the cheques were dishonoured. The petitioners did not make the payment despite issuance of legal notice.

3. From the rival contentions of the parties, it transpires that the controversy requires trial to ascertain and find out as to how and under what circumstances, the cheques in question were issued and delivered by P-2. P-2 has admitted her signatures on the cheques. Conflicting and inconsistent defence, whether the cheques were entrusted to the complainant for delivery to the concerned persons on instructions or stolen by him has been taken. These cheques on presentation in the bank were dishonoured with the remarks ‘insufficient funds’etc. When once the issuance